Sunday, March 1, 2020

The Big Picture: who is really running the show in the culture war, and its nature and trajectory

Major policies of liberals are contrary to Scripture and have the devil as their author.

[pardon the different size fonts: that is Blogger's fault, though I certainly have mine] While it is easy to focus on personalities and daily events in the on-going culture war, the larger picture is that this is a spiritual war in which liberals and the lost are simply proxy servants for the devil. Who, to varying degrees, uses these servant to “progressively” transform the world into an alternative world order of perversions of all that God has ordained.
Thus the real reason for liberal's attack on evangelicals and the latter's support of the most conservative leaders is because every major policy of the liberals is contrary to Scripture.
Starting with just the 10 commandments, with supporting texts, let us being with #1:
► 1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
In 2012 Democrats deleted or failed to include references to God and a united Jerusalem that were in the their 2008 platform statement, and it took 3 tries in a voice vote to put this statement of support back, and which apparently was still contrary to the vocal majority. (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/obamas-party-says-no-to-god)
Yet contrary to the first commandment  of the Ten in the Bible, the god of liberalism is not the God of the Bible, for  the supreme object of spiritual devotion for the Left overall is creation, that of the planet, and under the premise of saving it and society, they essentially make themselves out to be incarnated gods, as elite beings being worthy to be the supreme source of security and object of allegiance for mankind, to save the planet and the world.
And which is akin to that of making the one true God of the Bible into an a being like unto corruptible man, (Romans 1:22)  presenting themselves as saviors in their lust for power, while supporting abortion (along with suicide), and homosexual relations, as well as redefining gender along with disregarding basic parental rights versus state indoctrination, as well as opposing valid traditional authority in general, while promoting envy and covetousness in making souls dependent on them, and overall supporting immorality and rewarding indolence, while  punishing those who obtained  benefits by merit. All of which fosters the  destruction of society  whereby they may obtain power as dictators as souls trade freedom for  security.  
A major tactic used by the Left in its quest for power is that of the inculcation of the demonic "victim entitlement mentality"  referred to more further on in this article,  in which a class of souls are seduced into constantly seeing themselves as victims of oppression (usually thru imagined and or magnified  injustices, even if in generations past) by a enemy class (in which guilt is to be induced), and which is perennially  reinforced, whereby the Lefits elite present themselves as saviors, thereby obtaining the power they lest for. 
Perhaps no great example of the working out of this is that of the decline of the American Black Family,   Data from U.S. Census reports reveal that between 1880 and 1960, married households consisting of two-parent homes were the most widespread form of African-American family structures.[ composed of two parents and children. Single-parent homes, on the other hand, remained relatively stable until 1960; when they rose dramatically.[13 (Ruggles, S. (1994). The origins of African-American family structure. American Sociological Review, 136–151)]
As of 2015, at 77.3 percent, black Americans had the highest rate of non-marital births among native Americans.[18 (Camarota, y Steven A. "Births to Unmarried Mothers by Nativity and Education". Center for Immigration Studies)
In 1880, 75%  of black families in  Philadelphia  were nuclear families (r parents with children), while  by 2006,  married-couple families accounted for only 34% among African Americans. (https://www.urbanleaguephila.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ULP_SOBP.pdf)
 Which in practical terms is indicative of believing in another Lord and Savior, that of the Left and its "gospel" than that of the Bible, which exposes its tactics.   
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
And as part of this idolatry, liberals promote nature as an object of worship, for which humans are to sacrificed, and essentially ascribing to matter powers of deity, of pre-existence.
► 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:...(Exodus 20:4-5)
The graven images that are set up as objects of obeisance, of allegiance and security are the liberals who present themselves as saviors for the "oppressed," soul whom they seduced with the victim-entitlement gospel.
And whose divine kingdom of liberal-land promises assured income, free education, day care, health care - including for prevention and treatment of deleterious recreational practices promoted as a right - etc. While requiring supporters to worship at the altar of sacrosanct political correctness, and essentially salute the flag of Sodom, as they look to the state and its leaders as deity.
All of which is contrived as reasonably fundable, while in reality it is more akin to believing the Democrats will miraculously provide for it like manna falling down from Heaven.
► 3.Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7)
Rather, profanity (along with eroticism) is basically obligatory in liberalland, along with misusing the name/authority of God in order to give authority and sanction to their anti-Biblical policies,
► 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: (Exodus 20:8-10)
While the Lord's day (whether understood as the 7th of the 1st) as being a day of rest cannot be mandated, the fact that Sunday largely was more than any other day is a testimony to the overall basic character of America. Which liberalism is opposed to, and is actually hostile to the esteem of the word of God that is behind the overall observance of the 1st day as that of rest.
Instead, liberals want souls to rest in their promises and look to them as saviors every day. And the entity behind liberalism seeks the honor, glory and worship that is due to God alone. Which is related to Communism's lust to exalt itself as superior to capitalism and basic Biblical principles it relies on.
► 5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Exodus 20:12)
Instead, liberalism attacks the character of the Biblical family, by insisting that "father and thy mother" need not refer to male and female - which Christ specified is what God joined together (Mt. 19:4-6; cf. Gn. 2:18-24)
And as for children, liberal student rebels over administration buildings in the 70's in order to force submission to their demands, and today liberals promote rebellion against parental authority as they seek to make themselves, as the government, the supreme parent, and conform family and children into their image, as citizens of a new world order that overall perverts what God has ordained. Thus liberals promote gender dysphoria and sex-change treatment, even without parental consent, while also criminalizing any judicious Biblical corporeal chastisement of children.
► 6. Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13)
The Hebrew word for "kill" means murder, and the willful unlawful taking of innocent life is a capital crime. And afflicting the most vulnerable victims calls for Divine judgment. Yet liberals support the murder of the most innocent and vulnerable, even to placing a value upon life based upon location (an inch outside the womb - maybe once is breathes - but not while still inside). Which is justified based upon a "women's right to do with one's body as they choose." Woe to the child in a women's motor vechile that finds itself unwanted.
► 7.Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)
The command against adultery requires a definition of marriage, which liberal pervert in joining same-sex couples, while also providing for no-fault divorce, and affirming fornications in general (which Christ Himself stated was sin: Mk. 7:21).
► 8. Thou shalt not steal.
► 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)
These two go together in the case of liberalism and the likes of Communism. Theft is taking that which is not lawfully (according to Scripture) yours to take or obtain nor was given, and which is just what liberalism does and fosters, and uses deception in so doing.
And which aspect of liberalism is fundamental to its nature, and warrants deeper analysis, for which I ask the readers patience.
For in Scripture, benefits from God are provided as gift of purely unmerited grace - as in spiritual birth to sinners (Rm. 4:5; Titus 3:5) - or as recompense for obedience (Matthew 25: 31-40; 1 Cor. 3:8ff; Hebrews 10:35) - such as positions in the kingdom of Christ (Matthew 19:28; Rv. 3:21) - (although since both the ability as well as the motivation to obey God is wholly from God, thus this is of grace also, and not as a matter of justice, but because God has graciously consented to recompense obedience which He alone deserves credit for).
Likewise in the human economy benefits are to be given as recompense for obedience to Biblical principles (merit), or as response to the actions of others that placed one in legitimate need (as in a right to birth and care due to sex), or as a gift by the actions of others, which as a gift - not a right - is to foster a response of gratitude toward betterment according to ability.
Thus under grace God the Lord promises to those of overcoming faith, "I will grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne," (Revelation 3:21)
In contrast, in the original "occupy movement," the devil presumed to "climb up some other way" (Jn. 10:1) as if he deserved elevation, as if it were his right, asserting, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isaiah 14:13-14)
This was a form of attempted theft, presuming to take what was not his right to have as if it was his right, for like liberal elites he demanded that God "share the wealth," and in his own estimation presumed he should sit as God, and that God's means of blessing and promotion was not fair.
Being therefore cast down ("for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 18:14) yet still seeking power, he next goes to Eve and seduces her by inculcating a "victim-entitlement mentality," inferring that God was deceiving her with His warning of the consequences of disobedience for He was selfishly keeping back what was her right to have, which again was a demand that God needed to share the wealth with anyone who demanded it.
Of course, as with Communists and other liberals, the welfare of those they seduce with their message was not their actual goal, but that of selfishly obtaining power themselves by presenting themselves as the savior of those whom they oppress, with the result being progressive eventual oppression of all.Which is in stark contrast to the Lord Jesus, who sacrificially gave Himself for our sins, to liberate and lift up those who receive Him and bless those who sacrificially live out and share that faith by His Spirit in holiness, despite persecution, and in so doing serve others in love. (1 Thes. 1; Gal. 6:10; Heb. 6:9,20; Rv. 2; 3)
And by deceiving Eve who thus led Adam into sin, then the devil became the "god of this world," (2 Corinthians 4:4) whom the Lord had made Adam and Eve stewards of. (Genesis 1:28)
Thus when considering the ongoing culture war it must be realized that this is in reality a spiritual war, and that the trajectory of the liberals is that of attaining the objective of the devil, who selfishly seeks honor and power for himself, by bring God's creation to do obeisance to him, and deny God. Which is why he afflicted Job. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)
And in his demonic quest for power the liberals are proxy servants of the devil, to varying degrees, who - in addition to promoting other perversions of what God has ordained such as marriage - in their own quest for power essentially work to present those who obtained benefits by Biblical means as the oppressors (some liberals themselves being excepted) of those who do not have the same. And that the latter have a right - regardless of immoral or indolence or wasteful living - to what others have obtained by merit or inheritance, who must be compelled to "share the wealth" by specifically taxing them far more (percentage wise).
And thus such welfare is not presented as grace but as justice, as a right, even though it effectively means penalizing those who lawfully obtained what liberals assert is the right for their voting base to have, regardless of lack of merit and just the opposite.
Meanwhile liberals deny innocent infants in the womb (a state due to the actions of progenitors) the right to life, and instead effectively punish them for being something they had no choice in.
Thus liberals effectively disobey the commands not to murder, steal or lie, as well as the others, including the next and last:
► 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Exodus 20:17)
In instilling the demonic victim-entitlement mentality, Communism promoted envy and covetousness (note: jealousy as in the Bible is that of a just response to the loss of what was and is rightfully yours, while envy is wanting that which is not yours), which liberals foster in order to obtain power.
The Marxist points to the possessions and power of the capitalist "bourgeoisie" such as the factory owner, as unjust, regardless of the risks and honest labor he obtained it by, which possessions the Marxist asserts is the right of the "proletariat" (the lower class wage-earners) to have, and which the Marxist promises to obtain for them if given power.
Western liberals go beyond this and class the bourgeoisie as consisting of wage-earners who make over a certain (fluctuating) amount, and the proletariat as including those who can but will not be productive, and or who persistently engage is destructive lifestyles. Which includes medicaid support for the prevention (about 2,000 a day) and or treatment (lifetime about 400,000) of HIV/AIDs, with sodomy being the means of transmission in over 80% of cases among men . And again, the government provided benefits are provided as a right.
In conclusion, as the devil seeks total domination, that is what the trajectory of moral decline and advance of the liberal agenda would will lead to if not defeated, and with anarchy likely leading to a dictatorship in which all who will not essentially salute the flag of Sodom will be treated like as those who would not support Stalin.
 
However, the true church, the body of Christ, did not begin with a silver spoon but in an empire whose leaders would make all our current leadership look moral, and the New Testament Christians suffered much persecution, yet kept marching to Zion, spiritually speaking. It is that manner of faith that Christians need and will need to have as strangers and pilgrims in a foreign land, even as they seek others who join them on the narrow highway to Heaven, to the glory of God. 

For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:34-39)
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second edition:


The ethos of the liberal Left stands in complete contradiction to what God has ordained, in principles and precept.

1. Thou shalt have none other gods before me. (Deuteronomy 5:7)

Whatever is our motivating supreme object of spiritual devotion and ultimate source of security, is our god, at least at the moment. The Left promotes creation - nature (includes humans) and materialism - as being the supreme object of spiritual devotion in whose interest all else must be subject to, seeing as if finds its source of security therein. Of course, the part of nature that is the ultimate god for many of them is their leaders. Who, as with the devil whose proxy servants there are, lust for power, to be as gods to whom all are to be dependent upon for sustenance and security, and give adulation and make obeisance to and which their supporters give them.

Note that when the true and living God calls for supreme worship, then it not as the selfishly devil seeks, for God needs nothing, (Acts 17:25) and is always giving, while man is the only creature in the physical realm that gives God grief. But making the only omnipotent omniscient and morally perfect Being to be your God is simply right and what is best for man. For created things will ultimately fail us and often mislead us.

2. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. (Deuteronomy 5:8-10)

This flows from the former, with visible representations of their gods and their works - corruptions of the true and living God - being sacrosanct above all others, with anything that competes with or opposes being censored and targeted for extermination. A special mark which signifies this devotion and which is designed to compel obedience by requiring it for everything from travel to commerce, would be an extension of this.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Deuteronomy 5:11)

This goes along with having no graven images for worship, as just as they are forbidden, being corruptions of the one true God, so invoking His authority/name is an abuse of it. Likewise along with a sign of the required submission which the is increasingly required, would be the misuse of it, not simply what they would consider a misuse of their infrastructure (as we see in Internet censorship) but counterfeit use if the special mark which signifies devotion to the anti-Christ state.

4. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. (Deuteronomy 5:12)

Just as a special day is given in Scripture signifying the culmination of God's created work (and in the NT, the resurrection of Christ signifying His perfect final atonement), so today Earth day is holy day of obligation in the world of the Left, and we can expect some mandatory observation of a day signifying loyalty to the liberal state.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. (Deuteronomy 5:16)

Flowing from rebellion against the authority of God is rebellion against any God-instituted authority when it acts according to the word of God, beginning with parents. The Left not only fosters children that have no father and thus look to the women as the authority, but they promote rebellion against any authority when it acts according to the word of God, and makes the liberal state the supreme authority, to which all are to look for sustenance and security.

6. Thou shalt not kill [murder]. (Deuteronomy 5:17)

Not content with fostering rebellion by children against any just authority, the Left promotes the murder of those which are the product of sexual union as well as the innocent elsewhere, from nursing homes to Islamic nations who murder Christians. Meanwhile consistent with its murder of the innocent, it opposes capital punishment for those to willfully take such life, all the while hypocritical professing to value life.

7. Neither shalt thou commit adultery. (Deuteronomy 5:18)

As part of its rebellion against God the Left also works to corrupt the family which depends upon stable life-long union btwn the husband and wife, and thus promotes fornication and fosters adultery if it even sees marriage as favorable, which it overall does not as compared to The Pill. Which it feeds females beginning in preteen years and for decades after. Thus robbing women of the rewards of motherhood.

In further degradation, the Left whole-heartedly promotes sexually joining together what God has placed asunder, thus perverting the most basic aspect of God-ordained human society.

8. Neither shalt thou steal. (Deuteronomy 5:19)

The Left seeks to appropriate what it has not merited, presuming as the intellectual elite that they should be in authority without meriting it, whether it be students taking over administration offices or via "occupy movements." Likewise it promotes the victim-entitlement mentality in which souls are seduced by the message that if they do not have what others have merited/earned (or as much) then they are necessarily victims of unjust oppression, for whom so many millionaire Leftists present themselves as saviors for, promising them such benefits as a matter of justice. Thus mercy (not getting what you actually deserve) and grace (blessings you did not merit) y others is rejected, since any lack is necessarily due to injustice, regardless of how less diligent one has been in meriting such. Thus race and not ability often becomes the overriding determinant in employment or enrollment in the name of combating prejudice and racism. Which must be overcome, but not based upon preferring one race over another but by rewarding industriousness and ability and morality regardless of race.

However, obtaining position by envious presumption, not worthiness, is just what their master did in presuming he was worthy to sit in the place of God, (Is. 14:14) and then essentially telling Eve that she was being treated unjustly by God, and that it was her right to be as God who needed to "share the wealth." And rather than suffering for disobedience, this power was to be justly obtained by disobedience to Him. But instead this resulted in the devil obtaining power while she and her (more accountable) husband who gave into her suffered. Likewise the self-assumed liberal elite end up being the only ones living in luxury as a result of seducing masses to put them in power with their lies.

And consistent with the demonic rejection of God’s ordained means of obtaining benefits by obedience in addition to acts of mercy and grace, and liberalism’s antipathy against authority (other than them) and laws which punish immorality, radical liberals now advocate for defunding police and even abrogating laws that criminalize crimes from Driving Without A Valid License to Resisting Arrest to Wanton Destruction of Property.

9. Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Deuteronomy 5:20)

The Left engage in deception as a craft, from their overtly biased forced "interpretation" of history to misleading the audience about current social issues - -including promoting harmful moral practices (abortion, fornication, sodomy, etc. ) as healthy or needed - to promoting fabricated ideas about the Bible and persons.

10a. Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, (Deuteronomy 5:21)

It is within the Left that "open marriage" is treated as part of the lauded social liberation of society, if they esteem marriage at all.

10b. neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Deuteronomy 5:21)

The ethos of the Left fundamentally sanctions and employs coveting/envy in promoting the victim-entitlement mentality from Hell in which souls are seduced by the message that if they do not have what others have earned then they are necessarily victims of unjust oppression, which the deceptive selfish liberal saviors promise to obtain for them as expressed under Neither shalt thou steal. (Deuteronomy 5:19)

 

Monday, February 10, 2020

The proposed Federal "Equality Act"


The "Equality Act "reads (in part)
  • (1) Discrimination can occur on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity...
  • (2) discrimination against a married same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples, the sexual orientation of the two individuals in the couple, or both....
  • (3) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as “LGBTQ”) people commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations...providers including adoption and foster care providers...Forms of discrimination include...unequal or unfair treatment...
  • (7) The discredited practice known as “conversion therapy” is a form of discrimination that harms LGBTQ people by undermining individuals sense of self worth, increasing suicide ideation and substance abuse, exacerbating family conflict, and contributing to second class status.
  • (8) Both LGBTQ people and women face widespread discrimination in employment and various services, including by entities that receive Federal financial assistance.
  • (9) Federal courts have widely recognized that, in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress validly invoked its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide a full range of remedies in response to persistent, widespread, and pervasive discrimination by both private and government actors.
  • (11) An explicit and comprehensive national solution is needed to address such discrimination, which has sometimes resulted in violence or death, including the full range of remedies available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • (14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination..LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against...transgender people often encounter discrimination.,.
  • (15) transgender people have half the homeownership rate of non-transgender people and about 1 in 5 transgender people experience homelessness.
  • (16) LGBTQ people can experience being denied a mortgage, credit card, student loan, or many other types of credit simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • (17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people.
  • (18) attorneys discriminating against LGBTQ individuals, or those perceived to be LGBTQ, in jury selection.
  • (19) Although same-sex couples are 7 times more likely to foster or adopt than their different-sex counterparts, many child placing agencies refuse to serve same-sex couples and LGBTQ individuals.
  • (20) LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the foster care system by at least a factor of two and report twice the rate of poor treatment while in care compared to their non-LGBTQ counterparts. LGBTQ youth in foster care have a higher average number of placements, higher likelihood of living in a group home, and higher rates of hospitalization for emotional reasons and juvenile justice involvement than their non-LGBTQ peers...
  • SEC. 3. Public accommodations. (a) Prohibition on discrimination or segregation in public accommodations.—Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a) is amended—... (4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or program...
  • SEC. 208. Rule of construction. (2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.”.
  • SEC. 701A. Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–2) is amended— (1) in the section header, by striking “sex,” and inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity) ["sex is likewise expanded to sexual orientation and gender identity in all other sections where the code had simply sai "sex"]. (3) in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity.”
  • SEC. 1101. Definitions and Rules. (2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.
  • “(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity."
  • SEC. 1107. Claims. “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.
  • SEC. 12. Juries. (a) In general.—Chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—... "(2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), economic status, or national origin, respectively, of the individual.”
  • Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2019. ____________ Rep. Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1] (Introduced 3/13/2019) Committees: House - Judiciary; Education and Labor; Financial Services; Oversight and Reform; House Administration | Senate - Judiciary Committee Reports: H. Rept. 116-56 Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2019. Latest Action: Senate - 05/20/2019 Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (All Actions) Roll Call Votes: There have been 2 roll call votes
    _______________________________________________
Commentary

Justification for the The Act is largely based upon a number of non-referenced specious claims, including allegations of discrimination in they are actually favored over a conservative and to fulfill PC quotas, or in which the cause may be not established but is simply alleged (how many housing applicants are told the real reason for denial), or that of alleged effects of discrimination which can be explained as having a different cause (such the disorder that is behind their gender confusion and suicidal tendencies), or in which there is sound medical or moral reasons for discrimination and in which the solution itself would foster discrimination

(2) discrimination against a married same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples...

That is us and the likes of Jack Phillips (Masterpiece bakery)

(3) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as “LGBTQ”) people commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations.

Based upon who? Rather, most places of employment, especially higher paying jobs, LGBTQ they are given favored treatment due to homophobia (fear of the homosexual political powers that be) or desire to be politically correct. And "The Act" will nuke the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (see under SEC. 1107. Claims).

Forms of discrimination include...unequal or unfair treatment..

Sometimes even if contrived. Yet it is not unfair to vehemently and deeply financially persecute (including requiring censorship and a form of "re-education") men such as Jack Phillips who would not be complicit in celebrating a illegal (even according the state constitution at the time) marriage by consenting to contract a special cake for that express purpose. Which means that The Act would broadly sanction such.

And under government health care, this could lead to the removal of children (such as might profess Biblical non-PC morality) from conservative parents under the premise of concern for their psychological health, which the State is responsible for.

(7) The discredited practice known as “conversion therapy” is a form of discrimination that harms LGBTQ people

Meaning it is not permitted to show and say it is harmful to not convert, while this outlawing of conversion therapy (yet funding the murder of children without their consent) would discriminate against those who want it.

people by undermining individuals sense of self worth, increasing suicide ideation and substance abuse, exacerbating family conflict, and contributing to second class status.

Which is exactly what sodomy abundantly results in , via this being the means of HIV transmission in over 80% of men who are infected with it. And with Medicaid (for those enrolled in it) paying for treatment for it or PReP prevention of it (about 2,000 a day).

(8) Both LGBTQ people and women face widespread discrimination in employment and various services, including by entities that receive Federal financial assistance.

Again, it is safe to say that places of employment fear being accused of such, and this may even be the reason for hiring them (esp. if combined with race), versus their qualifications.

(9) Federal courts have widely recognized that, in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress validly invoked its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide a full range of remedies in response to persistent, widespread, and pervasive discrimination by both private and government actors.

Which seems to be a can of worms I am not qualified to deal with. Yet the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is to be stripped.

(11) An explicit and comprehensive national solution is needed to address such discrimination, which has sometimes resulted in violence or death,

Rather, if a consensual integral religious practice such as the Lord's supper was the cause of HIV transmission in over 80% of cases among men, and or a greatly incidence of infectious diseases, at significant cost to taxpayers for treatment or prevention, then "an explicit and comprehensive national solution" would be called for to deal with it, versus preventing discrimination against those who insist on it being affirmed as well as those who promote it.

(14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination..LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against...transgender people often encounter discrimination..

Which undocumented mantra is simply repeated, while in 2019 the New Your Times reported that same-sex couples earn significantly more money than their straight counterparts, although a LGBTQ compiler states (undocumented) that low income people are more likely to identify as LGBT than higher income people, yet people of color are more likely than whites to identify as LGBT, and which has as a prime cause the typical dysfunction of the black family (over 72% of kids born out of wedlock), which has been fostered by liberalism.

(15) transgender people have half the homeownership rate of non-transgender people and about 1 in 5 transgender people experience homelessness.

Which claim can only be based upon a presumption that discrimination is the cause, rather than the tragic disorder that is behind gender dysphoria and transgenderism also leaves such as less qualified for employment. Likewise that the increased suicide rate among lesbians is due to discrimination, versus issues that are behind being a lesbian.

(16) LGBTQ people can experience being denied a mortgage, credit card, student loan, or many other types of credit simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Which undocumented claim is again specious, and based upon a presumption that discrimination is the cause, rather than what most likely is the cause, which is the same reason straight people are denied the same. Credit card companies care about the color of money and whether they will make a profit off those they lend it to.

(17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBTQ people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people.

Likewise many straights are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people, such as those from the South, and typically evangelicals. And percentage-wise, more blacks I.D. as LGBTQ than whites. But again, the claim is based upon a presumption that the cause of the problem is not related to the cause being the condition of the those it presents as victims.

(18) attorneys discriminating against LGBTQ individuals, or those perceived to be LGBTQ, in jury selection.

Which is a fallacious argument, since there are two sides choosing, and while one lawyer can reject those perceived to be LGBTQ, the other can choose such, and may indeed if that was the reason for the rejection by the opposition. Thus the issue is whether peremptory challenges should be allowed.

(19) Although same-sex couples are 7 times more likely to foster or adopt than their different-sex counterparts, many child placing agencies refuse to serve same-sex couples and LGBTQ individuals.

And again, many child placing agencies may choose to serve same-sex couples and LGBTQ individuals (in MA the government official boasted of this), especially over conservative Christians. Yet if same-sex couples are not favored, their is certainly a valid reasons for this in the light of the negative moral and medical consequences of it.

(20) LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the foster care system by at least a factor of two and report twice the rate of poor treatment while in care compared to their non-LGBTQ counterparts. LGBTQ youth in foster care have a higher average number of placements, higher likelihood of living in a group home, and higher rates of hospitalization for emotional reasons and juvenile justice involvement than their non-LGBTQ peers...

Once again this claim can only be based upon a presumption that discrimination is the problem, rather than being due to psychological issues that are behind and concomitant with gender dysphoria and transgenderism and LGBTQ orientation and often very manifest. And requiring the adoption of such by those desirous of adopting is not the answer. And is inconsistent with the liberal argument that mothers should be able to abort children that are undesirable to her.

SEC. 3. Public accommodations....(4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or program... (2) shall not be construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.”.

Sounds broad enough to include churches. Even meeting outside, and thus requiring the hiring of LGBTQ ministers.

"individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity..". "appearance, mannerisms,”

That is so plastic that it does not even include a permanent status. So Sunday school teacher Mr. Morphis decides he is a women and tells his class to address him as her cannot be disfellowshipped, while those to call him by his bioID are fined.

“(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity."

There is it. Now Mr. Morphis can use the ladies room, and those who object will be the criminals.

SEC. 1107. Claims. “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.

This is BIG. "Covered title" apparently refers to the above codes, and which apparently means that RFRA must bow to the image of The Act.

"(2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), economic status, or national origin, respectively, of the individual

"A perception or belief, even if inaccurate," means that the gov., equates what one professes his sexual I.D. to be as if it were a religious belief, except the "sincerely held" need not be established.

Passed the House of Representatives May 17, 2019.

Meaning that our elected leaders have sadly acted like the house of Baal, and want to require all to effectively salute the flag of Sodom.


Thomas F. Farr of "Real Clear Religion warns ,
 

Supporters of the Equality Act claim it will increase equality in America, but it will actually harm one of the most fundamental rights we all share as Americans – religious freedom. It purports to ban discrimination, but it actually bans disagreement...The Act..would add sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to classes protected under the Civil Rights Act, such as race and sex...Race is an immutable characteristic unconnected to distinctive behaviors or expressions. By contrast, behaviors and expressions are part of SOGI identities...Can the rejection of SOGI behaviors and expressions be tolerated in America?

The law would devastate institutions built on those convictions, such as schools, charities, small businesses, hospitals, and houses of worship. The Act will expose persons or groups holding these beliefs to lawsuits and financial ruin. The law will mark them – like racists – as “hateful” and “bigoted...”

A sampling of likely harms foreshadows an America of increasing government coercion, some of which is already happening. Schools with traditional policies on sex and marriage will lose their tax exemptions and be forced to change or close. Adoption agencies seeking to place children with married mothers and fathers will be forced to shut down. Females will have to compete in sports and share locker rooms with biological males. Small businesses that cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex weddings will be driven out of business. (Thomas F. Farr (May 16, 2019) The Equality Act Will Harm Religious Freedom, RealClearReligion.org). 

 
Even the moderate "Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Inc."  (IRFA warns,

the Equality Act explicitly undermines the main federal law that protects religious freedom, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)...

 The Equality Act, by contrast, would prohibit appeals to RFRA when a religious person or organization is charged with violating a nondiscrimination rule.... By preventing the application of RFRA, the Equality Act would make the LGBT claim always win, by definition...

The Equality Act simply labels as illegal discrimination any differential treatment related to SOGI. It posits that all necessary religious protections are already present in the civil rights laws. Then it strips away the religious freedom protections that Congress has said should apply to all federal laws and actions. By dramatically narrowing the scope of application of RFRA, which is the premier federal statutory protection for religious freedom, the Equality Act seeks to declare that, by definition, religious exercise claims can never outweigh claims of SOGI discrimination...

Under the Equality Act, will churches, synagogues, and mosques [and religious schools and colleges] be declared to be public accommodations and thus be subject to strict SOGI nondiscrimination requirements in everything they do, including if they ever invite into worship non-members as well as members, if they ever rent out their facilities... 

 The Equality Act proposes to dramatically expand the definition of public accommodations in federal law...

Employment by religious organizations. Title VII, the fundamental federal employment law, includes an exemption that protects the ability of religious schools, charities, and houses of worship to consider religion when hiring and firing...the Equality Act offers no assurances at all to religious employers about this vital matter...

Hospitals and medical practices. The Equality Act proposes to treat any “establishment that provides health care” to be a public accommodation and thus subject to its SOGI nondiscrimination requirements. It offers no protection for religious hospitals or medical facilities staffed by doctors and nurses who for reasons of religion or conscience are unable to perform sex-change operations or gender identity transition treatments...

Adoption and foster care... under the Equality Act...a faith-based adoption or foster care provider, exercising its professional judgment about the best environment for children needing new homes, declines to place a child with a same-sex couple or LGBT person, it may well lose vital government funding or even the ability to operate at all. (Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Inc. http://www.irfalliance.org/a-better-way-than-the-equality-act/)

Sunday, January 12, 2020

Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura

 A Step-by-Step Refutation of Dave Armstrong vs. Sola Scriptura 

This was to be a reply to a Catholic who posted Armstrong's apologetic on a forum, but which was pulled before I could post it. It takes me a long time to type with my arthritic fingers, and  rather than let my work go to waste I thought I would post it here.  

Note that (as i suspected and later found out) Armstrong's work is from many years ago (2003), and he has posted a reply to a challenger that I have not read, and most likely will not be dealing with, but which has the the link to the original  and is here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/defense-of-my-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura.html 

I tried to notify Armstrong of my response here but received this when I tried: "We are unable to post your comment because you have been banned by Biblical Evidence for Catholicism"
 
1. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one

Actually papal teaching is that,

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church... (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) 

but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. 

Which means that Armstrong is teaching sola Roma, that she, "The Church" alone is the sure supreme and sufficient standard for faith and morals, providing all the essential oral and written express public revelation of God.

However, while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation... God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error....God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm 

Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages. 

Actually, SS does not need to mean that sufficiency refers to only what is formally provides (such as by clear statements), but that,

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:...

those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means , may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them...

and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. 

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience...
- The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646  (emp. mine).
 
And actually Catholics can and do disagree on whether every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly.

As James White states,

"Rome's official statements do not explicitly define whether Tradition is the second of a two-part revelation (known as partim-partim), or if both forms of revelation contain the entirety of God's revealed truth." http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3319

2. “Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah: “For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]). This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. 

SS holds that men such as the prophets and apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet this does not validate the "infallible" claim of Rome to infallibly do so, (as pointed under #2), and  even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they say is the word of God.

Moreover Armstrong's polemic "proves too much," for the only reason Armstrong can cite this is because it was written.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

And that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced 

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. 

Which polemic presumes what it cannot prove, that, "This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture." And what is the basis for this assertion is True? Because Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

(Consistent with this, in Catholic theology it is taught than man cannot now what Scripture consists of apart from her, and thus Scripture is to be appealed to as a merely historical document. By which the potential convert is supposed to see that the RCC is of God even  though the poor soul cannot discern wholly inspired Scripture as being of God. Which is consistent Rome's exalted view of herself, but contrary to the fact that an  a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ - without an infallible magisterium) 

Thus as Keating said regarding (the assumption of) the Assumption,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275. 

Which is circular, and is to be remembered when Armstrong later tries to argue what the SS position is.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. 

This is true, as we know. And Paul also quoted a pagan, (Acts 17:28) and Jude quoted from Enoch.

But only texts from  the Hebrew's canonical books are referred to as Scripture. Meanwhile again, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, which  Rome does not presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do either in declaring what they say is the word of God.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians: 

Indeed they did,  with James providing the final judgment, and which council flows from the OT (Dt. 17:8-13) to which  conditional (Acts 5:29) obedience in required, as it is toward all authority. (Rm. 13:7-7)  But contrary to Armstrong, this is  not contrary to SS, for again as Westminster states:

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. ( CHAPTER XXXI.)

The distinction Armstrong misses is between being the sure and supreme sufficient standard on Truth, versus judicial authority for church on earth. The OT version of the supreme court certainly had authority, (Dt. 17:8-13) - dissent was a capital offense - but it was not infallible. And the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is nowhere promised or necessary in Scripture.

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition.. The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura. 

This again "proves too much," for those who sat in the seat of Moses were no more infallible than Rome is, and taught traditions of men that the Lord reproved from Scripture as being supreme. And even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by the Scriptures by noble men. (Acts 17:11)

Yet Rome effectively presumes she is above such, even declaring belief in the Assumption of Mary to be dogma, which was so lacking even in early testimony of Tradition (where it would be found) that chief scholars of Rome opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine . But for Rome, history, tradition and Scripture only authoritatively consist of and mean what she says - if she does say to herself!

Thus we see distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura To give two examples from the Old Testament itself: a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26). 

This also fails to make distinction between being the sure and supreme sufficient standard on Truth, versus earthly judicial authority. Meanwhile Ezra could also speak and write as wholly inspired of God, unlike popes and councils.

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9). So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16). 

Which is not an argument against SS, seeing as it affirms the magisterial office, and thus Armstrong is arguing against a strawman. For what Armstrong is not stating is that of his novel and unScriptural premise, that of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome
 
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text” “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).

Which argument is again invalid since Rome does not speak as wholly inspired apostles, prophets and writers did, while what Scripture materially provides is part of SS sufficiency, and thus it affirms teachers, and evangelicalism abounds with teaching aids. What  we  lack  is a central magisterium, which is Scriptural, but which concept Rome has poisoned by presuming too much of herself and by her corruption.

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture. 

This logical fallacy is akin to Armstrong's failure to differentiate between the only infallible source/authority on Truth, and earthly judicial authority. Here the difference is between pastors and teachers etc. and what materially equips them to be part of the church and for it to grow in grace.

For the church itself was manifestly prophetically and doctrinally built upon Scripture, and by which use in doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, "the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes: “If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). “Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). He didn’t write about “the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught.” 

Which again both proves too much, since we only know of this reference because God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. And that once again, popes and councils do not speak as wholly inspired of God, though councils can be the supreme judicial authority in the church on earth.

Nor can Rome prove she is teaching what the apostles orally did, as instead faithful Catholics are supposed to take her word for it.

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation. This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” 

Asserting that the Constitution (or Bible) is true because it says so is circular, but once that is settled, arguing about what the Constitution teaches and says about itself is not circular.

The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter. 

Again, SS affirms the judicial office, but not as possessing ensured infallibility, which is the real argument Armstrong does not make.

And rather than an infallible magisterium being required  for writings to be established as being from God, Scripture attests that a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. 

This also is a logically self-defeating since Rome herself has neither defined all the issues that RCS can disagree on, nor what magisterial level each belongs to, and what she has taught is subject to varying degrees of variant interpretations. And today Catholicism exists as a collection of formal and informal sects. And rather than her magisterium providing unity, as one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)

And as what we really believe is shown by what we do, Rome shows her interpretation of what/who she inclusively constitutes a member can be by manifestly treating even liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures as members in life and in death.

In addition, considering what is broadly classed as Protestantism then comparing one church, albeit existing in schisms and sects, with such a broad class is invalid.

'But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” 

Actually, once again Armstrong needs to be schooled:
In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith." (CCC 90) 

and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion." 

Armstrong here in engaging in sophistry by blaming SS for division, a problem which his alternative has not solved, while most of what he describes is among those who do not take Scripture seriously, and mischaracterizes such.

Meanwhile Catholics attest to being far less unified in core beliefs/values than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, which Catholics attack as a basis for unity.

And under his alternative to SS then submission to Rome is the answer, and Rome shows her interpretation of what constitutes a member by manifestly considering liberal proabortion, prohomosexual souls as members in life and in death, while officially teaching false doctrine even on salvation, then her's is a unity that leads to Hell.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Revelation 18:4) 

Supplemental: questions for those who argue for the alternative of SS, sola ecclesia. 

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?

2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written"/Scripture?


3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?


4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?


5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?


6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?


7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as 

apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?

8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?


9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?


10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being the express Divine revelation which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?


11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired  
public revelation outside Scripture since the last book was penned?

12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?


13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?


14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?